It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Phobia

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempteryep

yes or hang above the door in the pioneer days.....no one was without one....even the womens group and they had guns in school shooting in the basements....and the pics of the armed wives group in communities...the look on their faces were so serious....no messin with a women's gun group when they have slits for eyes starin into your soul




posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   
unbounded spirit....cool site there nwtrucker....put the hammer down , old buddy

thanks and it's locked in my favorites



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

And when guns were invented the intended target was a human being with the goal of killing them. These are weapons that the Chinese developed for war. They weren't designed for hunting. They weren't designed for recreation. They were designed to end the life of another human being.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fear of consequence IS a pragmatic tool in deterrence. It works. So, in essence, I agree with you.

Environment does play a role in this. Ironically, the urban areas tend to be more dangerous than the rural areas where it is more acceptable to carry.

Fear of guns versus the fear of NOT having a gun.

In between is the human ability to deal with life and it's vagaries.

Also, there is a distinction between fear/intimidation and respect. Respect of potentialities. Awareness.

That, in general, is why I'd trust a vet with a weapon, more than a citizen. Even the older generations that took their sons out and taught them the use and respect for a weapon.

I think that fearing someone that you don't know with a weapon one is unaware of is very analogous to fearing an engine in a plane or the condition of a pilot or some other plane and it's pilot and refusing to fly.

I have no problem with people not wanting to fly.

I would have a huge problem with people wanting to ban planes!!



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I think that fearing someone that you don't know with a weapon one is unaware of is very analogous to fearing an engine in a plane or the condition of a pilot or some other plane and it's pilot and refusing to fly.


You also have to be licensed and highly trained to fly a plane. Neither of which are required across all 50 states for guns.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
fear of guns is entirely rational. acceptance of them as a requirement for life is not.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

But what happens when there is a plane crash? There is a lengthy investigation to determine not only how it happened but why it happened. Those answers then lead to new, industry wide, regulations that help prevent that situation from ever occurring again.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

It's not semantics. There is very clear cut diagnostic criteria and it has nothing to do with free thinking.


Let me be quite clear about the area you cite, I do not refer to you on this either, however, what you post is nothing more than psycho-babble in my estimation.

The 'field' you quote, has largely given up on therapy and thereby admitting that it, in most cases, doesn't work and has become no more than a drug pusher for Big Pharma receiving 'speaking engagement fees' and free accommodations at high-end resorts in exchange for high volume prescriptions written.

I therefore completely ignore any and all 'criteria' you quote. I have it on good authority that the psychs tend to be in the lower third of med grads and move into that field due to being unable to compete in the higher paying specialties.

The fact that they still remain well entrenched in gov't activities doesn't equate to giving them any more credence than they merit. Which is none.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

But what happens when there is a plane crash? There is a lengthy investigation to determine not only how it happened but why it happened. Those answers then lead to new, industry wide, regulations that help prevent that situation from ever occurring again.


Very good. If there is a flaw in gun manufacturing that leads to, say, a misfiring or perhaps an exploding barrel, then yes! Similar 'regulation' should apply. If one model of rifle is defective, similar to a part or even the whole design of a plane, they should be treated equally.

Mechanical flaws.

The intent, including the liabilities, of Constitutionally protected gun ownership is well articulated.

The commercial air industry is not so protected.

My analogy is the fear issue. That, sir, is a valid analogy.
edit on 22-2-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Sure is a lot of denial in the area of fear of guns, based on the responses......


edit on 22-2-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Not mechanical failures. What happened when that pilot flew a plane in to a mountain because he was depressed?



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The commercial air industry is not so protected.

My analogy is the fear issue. That, sir, is a valid analogy.

Yes, only because you ignored my point that pilots have to be licensed and go through extensive training to become one while gun owners don't necessarily have to do either.

Plane crashes also have a 95.7% survival rate too.
edit on 22-2-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The commercial air industry is not so protected.

My analogy is the fear issue. That, sir, is a valid analogy.

Yes, only because you ignored my point that pilots have to be licensed and go through extensive training to become one while gun owners don't necessarily have to do either.

Plane crashes also have a 95.7% survival rate too.


The point you made, and that is true, isn't germane to this thread. This thread is based on fear of guns, not regulatory issues in the air transportation industry. My analogy was limited to the fear aspect.

If you have desire to expand on your point, I'd recommend the air projects forum. Zaphod would be glad to have you..



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

Not mechanical failures. What happened when that pilot flew a plane in to a mountain because he was depressed?


Again, not germane to this thread. I've had enough time on ATS to recognize an attempt to move off of the thread topic and in this case is fear of guns. Yes?

The analogy was limited to the fear aspect.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
Lol. So the point is only apt as long as it applies to your reasoning, but once I show that you are wrong then we can't talk about it anymore?

You talk about fear and planes and I pointed out that there are not only regulations but also statistics to show that fear is misplaced making it a real phobia. Fear of guns is NOT a real phobia. It's just common sense.

Your comparison between planes and guns is extremely weak.
edit on 22-2-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

So let's talk about the fear aspect. Like I asked above, is it irrational to fear dying by fire and taking steps to prevent such a fate?



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
fear of guns is entirely rational. acceptance of them as a requirement for life is not.


Rational? I suggest otherwise.

Awareness? yes. Fear. No. One can always 'rationalize' a 'fear'.

Then there's degrees to 'fear'. Even fear of guns. You can have your fears for that matter. Using your fears to inhibit my rights is irrational.

That is the evidence of the irrationality. I don't know where you stand on it, but restricting ownership to those that do not fear or misuse weapons based on insane acts by a minuscule few is irrational.


edit on 22-2-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

So let's talk about the fear aspect. Like I asked above, is it irrational to fear dying by fire and taking steps to prevent such a fate?


If you intend imposing your fear on others who do not have that fear, say, by banning fire, I'd say absolutely.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

So let's talk about the fear aspect. Like I asked above, is it irrational to fear dying by fire and taking steps to prevent such a fate?


Let me put this simply. your right to be wary of guns ends where my right to not be wary of them begins. In short screw your fears if it restricts my rights to own what i want to own.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Every building is required to meet certain specifications in order to minimize risk of fire. Every business is required to have regular inspections to make sure they are following the law. As time goes on and circumstances change these regulations are updated to make sure we are as safe as possible.

These regulations impede on my right to choose how I want my house built or how I want to run my business. Yet no one would argue that these regulations and laws are to the detriment of society nor that they an irrational reaction to a fear of fire.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join